Proposed features/Saltmarsh

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A tag for marshland which borders saltwater.

Proposed Value

Intent : to mark saltmarsh areas.

This new value may be used on areas. The proposed tag is:

<tag k="natural" v="saltmarsh"/>

Perhaps the value "saltmarsh" may be possible with the "natural" key too ? I have updated this, saltmarshes are always natural objects Myfanwy 21:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Please add your opinion here.

I don't understand the wikipedia link above to salt ponds (non-natural objects). What exactly is salt marsh? --inas 22:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

hmm, don't know who put that there, but it was wrong. corrected. Myfanwy 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Would like to link Proposed features/Water cover to this discussion, in case any ideas can filter between the articles... Ojw 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that we also have Mangrove marshes, Peat Marshes, etc. I would prefer to see natural=marsh cover all of these and then have a subkey marsh=salt,mangrove,peat etc. to identify the different sorts of marshes. Once natural=marsh is actually rendered, then all types of marsh will automatically be rendered. If differentiation is actually needed, then the marsh= key is used. Given that natural=marsh has been on the map features page ever since I started OSM'ing and it is still not rendered by anything, it I would not hold my breath waiting for additional natural tags to be rendered. It makes sense to make life easier for the renderers and leverage the existing tags. Swampwallaby 05:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm dubious as to whether it's worth it/useful - there will only be a few marsh types (peat is a bog, technically, but i'm not sure of the difference, if any) and it won't take long to create them all, but if you want to do it, go for it, anyone can work on the tags. i feel like i'm swimming against the tide, cleaning up tag proposals, any help appreciated, and i'm sure that goes for the others working on the tag system. as an aside, it would be useful if these objections came up during the rfc, rather than during the vote.Myfanwy 08:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As OJW's illustrations show, in this case, as in many others, there are usually lots of dimensions, so hierachical tagging is essential. The trick is to find the top level description that will mean the most to most map users. I agree with Swampwallaby: natural=marsh seems ok to me. Chrismorl 16:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


voting is open
i approve this proposal Myfanwy 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I approve this proposal Franc 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I disapprove this proposal. I would like to see a marsh subkey to differentiate different marsh types --Swampwallaby 05:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I approve this proposal -- MikeCollinson 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I disapprove this proposal. (For the same reasons as Swampwallaby). Dmgroom 14:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I disapprove this proposal (natural=saltmarsh), bit I like Swampwallaby's idea --Cbm 16:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I disapprove this proposal (natural=saltmarsh) Chrismorl 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I disapprove this proposal (Ditto as Swampwallaby) Nikolaj 20:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I disapprove this proposal (Ditto as Swampwallaby) --Cartinus 13:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

voting is closed this proposal has been rejected Myfanwy 19:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)